Kendrick, a CFI from Georgia, writes: After teaching short-field takeoffs and landings to a student the other day, she asked me, “How short must a field be to be a short field?” I confess I was stumped. I had never thought about it, and I don’t recall any of my instructors ever giving me a number. I’ve looked high and low and can’t seem to find a standard definition. Any thoughts from the Double Master Ground Instructor?
My first thought was that I’d never thought about it either! And that it was a great question. One that there must surely be an answer to.
I figured it was unlikely there would be a definition such as “a short field is any landing surface less than ______ feet,” as short in Telluride, Colorado, would be crazy long in Newport, Oregon. And of course, short for one sort of airplane isn’t short for another. We all know that jetliners need miles, while a tricked out STOL can land within its own spinner-to-tail length.
But, aviation being what it is, I figured that there must be some sort of official definition, or regulatory guidance, or laying down of the law — whether it was some arcane length adjusted for altitude formula, or a factor for comparing runway length to other fields within a certain geographical distance, or some other equally bizarre metric. How hard could it be to find out?
The first place I look for simple explanations to anything I’m not sure about is in the oft-overlooked Glossaries of the FAA publications. In this case, I started with the Airplane Flying Handbook (AFH). Let’s see here… Shaft horse power… Shock waves… Slide slip… No Short.
We’ve been short-changed.
Looking at the chapters on takeoffs and landings, the takeoff chapter simply says that pilots should, “operate the airplane at the maximum limit of its takeoff performance capabilities” when taking off from “fields where the takeoff area is short, or the available takeoff area is restricted by obstructions.” The chapter detailing landing technique for short fields simply defines them as “fields with a relatively short landing area.”
Could it be as simple as un-scientific relativity?
Not deterred just yet, I checked my now-vintage Flight Training Handbook (AC 61-21A) and found virtually the same language that today’s AFH uses.
Next, it was to the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, which I have a love/hate relationship with, and swear that I will someday rewrite to make it a better read. It’s also short on information about short fields, with nothing at all in the glossary, and nothing at all in the index.
Then I took a stroll through my extensive bookcase of non-FAA flight training books and manuals, and it’s clear that either the definition of a short field is a closely guarded secret, or that no one before your student ever thought to wonder about it.
With a groan, I turned to the regs. 14 CFR § 1.1 — da’ definitions — is also mute on short. In fact, if you search the entire FAA Regulations (easy to do using a “simple” search at e-CFR, which provides links to the regs and highlights your inquiry in red text) you’ll find that short field ops are only mentioned in two places: Part 137, which deals with ag ops; and in the student pilot regs, of all places. Yeah, the only place that short field is in the regs for GA pilots is in 14 CFR § 61.93 where the regs require student pilots to have received and logged flight training in short field takeoffs and landing prior to solo cross country.
And of course, the Airman Certification Standards for Private Pilot (Airplane) also lists our undefined short field ops as required test items. And while the length of the field remains undefined, pilots nowadays must land their airplanes within 200 feet beyond a specified point on the runway to pass their checkride.
In exasperation, or perhaps desperation, I broke out Google and quickly learned that the proper, official definition of short field is “the area of the infield between third base and second, covered by the shortstop.” Ah. Well, now we know.
And I’m sure that 95% of pilots — the backcountry guys and gals being the exception — would agree that landing in a baseball diamond between second and third base would be very short indeed (90 feet for Major League Baseball or 60 feet for Little League).
Looking to other experts, I found that our buddies over at Boldmethod don’t appear to have defined short fields for us either, although they have a ton of stuff, so I might have missed it.
Meanwhile, Mike Hart, writing at AVweb, says that while the military defines any field less than 3,000-feet as short, this hardly works for GA.
Although, that said, ATP, the largest flight school in the country, seems to have adopted the military mindset with a blanket ban on runways less than 3,000 feet for its fleet of more than 340 single-engine training planes (along with a minimum runway width of 75 feet).
Hart goes on to propose that a short field is “best defined by considering an amalgam of factors,” including the airplane, field conditions, elevation, slope, obstructions, weather, and density altitude. He personally defines short field as “any field within two to three times my idealized takeoff or landing performance.”
Aviation writer, photographer, and instructor extraordinaire Budd Davisson takes a different track, saying that the “definition of ‘short’ should start with the pilot.” He writes that the best bush plane in the world is useless if the pilot can’t fly it with precision.
As an important side note, Budd also reminds us that it’s the takeoff that should be top of the list when thinking short as “it’s quite possible to land in a space we can’t fly out of.”
So, where do we go from here? There’s nothing in the official training materials from the FAA — either old nor new. There’s nothing in commercially-produced training materials. Nothing in the regs. And our expert voices have a wide range of (sensible) working definitions, but nothing you can use an E6B to calculate.
I guess you need to teach your students that if it looks short to them, use the short field technique.
And me? How do I define short?
Simple: If I look down at the runway from the pattern and start to sweat, the runway is short.
William E. Dubois is a “double” Master Ground Instructor accredited by NAFI and Master Instructors, a commercial pilot, a two-time National Champion Air Racer, and — not being a bush pilot — is of the opinion that you can never have too much runway.
Much drama for something that does not have a definitive answer, for that reason it does not appear in any aeronautical publication, it is not the same to land a 747 than a PA 18, for a 747 a few hundred meters will be a short space, while for a PA 18 only a few meters will suffice.
In other words, the short space depends on what type of plane we are flying. and the drama is over.
Specific discussion on runway lengths is found in the 150-series of AC’s which deal with airports and airport design. The key document is AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design which actually details runway lengths for small (<12,500 lb) GA aircraft with approach speeds at < 30 knots, approach speeds of 30 knots or more to less than 50 knots, and aircraft with approach speeds of 50 knots or more with a maximum takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less. That one has it's own special set of tables and graphs to allow for all the variables associated with takeoffs and landings.
If you're interested in checking it out, it's a short read at 42 pages until you start doing the math and it is available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_150_5325-4B.pdf.
Airport design is a very interesting subject area and one that totally demolishes the theory that a runway is a runway is a runway.
And I should mention that the shortest minimum runway length specified is 300′ for that aircraft with an approach speed of less than 30 knots.
Ive always thought of a “short field” as any runway whose length/surface/obstructions/slope/wind/density altitude challenges an aircraft’s performance to the extent that a takeoff or landing must depart from normal procedures to safely execute the evolution.
What is a short field for a DC3 is not for a J3. For a given aircraft on a given field, conditions can change such that one take off is not short but another would be.
Transport acct have V1, V2 ECT. Light aircrafts too but it isn’t in writing in one place. Not defined.
To figure it out note the charts for take-off distance under existing conditions. Then note landing ground roll distane. Add 25% comfort factor.
If the runway required to get to Vs and then stop is more than available IT IS SHORT. in other words if you can’t abort at rotation speed w/o running off the end it is short.
You have to decide a decision speed that is well below Vr/Vx
Obstacles must be considered. Trees, corn fields, rising terrain also must be considered.
A 5000 foot runway with a 2000 foot rising cliff is short been for a PA 18 w 200 up. Or it is a one way strip.
Short field…I agree with the sentiment of “what I can fly away from”. Most small GA airplanes can probably land in less yardage than they can take off in. I was advised by an old Alaskan bush pilot that you need to know what you can fly off from (type of terrain, DA, wind direction and velocity, etc.) as well as the performance of your airplane and pilot skills. One you figured out that distance, that is your “minimum” runway length. When I fly into an unfamiliar airport with a 1,200 to 1,800 runway, it’s always a short field landing.
Very interesting article. There are so many factors to consider, plane, pilot skill, runway surface, wind, etc. I fly a Aeroprakt A-22 and fly from a 1900’ strip in NJ. I can get it down and stopped in 250’ most days, but would hate to try it if the strip was 500’ .
Practicing it vs having to do it for real might be two different things.
Come try my farm strip of half mile full fuel on a hot day
then you know what short field is can be done
Unless directed otherwise, why not consider every runway as short. Recently I flew with a student who had never experienced the acceleration of ground effect. There seems to be a chronic hurry to get into the air. Why not use all of the runway to gain airspeed flying at 15 feet. Hand on full power, and then pop into the climb.
That’s a lot of fun to do once in a while, but the reason not to fly down the entire runway at 15′ is that when your engine quits close to or at the end of the runway, you’ve got fewer options on where you are putting it down. If you climb out as quickly as possible as soon as you are airborne, you’ll have more time to react and options on where to go. You may argue that the energy from building up airspeed will allow a climb even after the engine quits, but you’ll never gain the same altitude per forward movement plus you’ll lose the time to react and ability to know where you might be able to turn to being at a lower altitude. Again the thrill of that is a lot of fun, but it’s definitely not a best practice.
One use for runway in excess of the minimum length required for takeoff is to use some of that distance to accelerate to a higher airspeed WHILE STILL ON THE RUNWAY (airspeed is usually gained more quickly while the weight is on the wheels than it is in free air, out of ground effect). Example: Select the minimum flap setting (e.g. Flaps Up) that still provides a comfortable margin of remaining runway as per the AFM/POH. The lesser flap setting will be associated with a higher Vr, resulting in improved controllability and overall performance margins in flight.
Pretty much anytime conditions and equipment dictate you don’t have room to spare for a successful departure without obstacle contact.
Not to be confused with flatlander blunders leaving Vail which is a sinking problem.
AOPA had an article on ‘short fields’ in 1998.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1998/september/flight-training-magazine/what-makes-a-runway-short
I would consider a short field to be one where I can just lift off and then abort and still stop before the end of the runway.
Per my C175 POH, at S.L., takeoff distance, and then a ground roll, total 1,325 ft. adding 20% makes it 1,600 ft.
If I use climbing to 50 ft, then landing, the total distance is 2,500 ft.